Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 9 July 2024

A Discussion was convened by videoconference with Deputy Vice-Chancellor Dr Jessica Gardner, SE, presiding and the Registrary’s deputy, the Senior Proctor and the Junior Proctor as the attending officers.

Remarks were received as follows:

Forthcoming disposal of land at West Cambridge for the Cambourne to Cambridge busway *

(Reporter, 2023–24: 6744, p. 626 and 6747, p. 705).

CCCCambridgeshire County Council

CPOCompulsory Purchase Order

GCPGreater Cambridge Partnership

TWAOTransport and Works Act Order

Dr A. Gannon (Department of History of Art and St Edmund’s College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I would like to register my environmental concerns, both regarding the carbon footprint of the project and the impact on the Orchard at Coton.

Might this linking project, on a much reduced scale, be a cyclable route instead?

Dr D. O’Brien (Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Innovation and Emmanuel College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the disposal of land outlined in the Notice is intended to facilitate the construction and operation of the section of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Cambourne to Cambridge Busway scheme that is proposed to travel through the Cambridge West Innovation District, previously known as the West Cambridge site.

The Notice was an explanatory note inviting comments on an upcoming Grace which will seek approval of the permanent land disposal once negotiations for the lease conclude.

Concerns have been raised by objectors to the Busway proposals, in particular relating to the potential environmental impacts at Coton and to alternative route options.

I observe that any concerns of that nature will be addressed by the statutory process set out in the Transport and Works Act 1992 and are beyond the University’s remit and control.

Cambridgeshire County Council intend to submit a Transport and Works Act Order for the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway to the Secretary of State in due course. If there are numerous objections, the Secretary of State is likely to arrange for a public inquiry to be held by a planning inspector. This is a structured way to allow objectors and supporters to present their case in person.

If the TWAO is made by the Secretary of State following inquiry, then the land in question at Cambridge West, which is currently owned freehold by the University, will be needed to build and operate the busway. This will be facilitated by either (a) a Compulsory Purchase Order in favour of Cambridgeshire County Council, which if successful will result in CCC obtaining the freehold interest in the land in question, plus permanent rights along Charles Babbage Road, or (b) the grant of a negotiated 125‑year lease, as per the proposal submitted for the University’s approval. The latter is in my opinion, the most favourable of the two options available to the University. It has been negotiated and structured in order to, as far as possible, protect the University’s long-term ownership position at Cambridge West and avoid loss of control and fragmentation of certain areas of this important land holding.

Therefore, the decision at hand is for the University to consider the recommendation to grant a 125‑year lease to CCC, in order to avoid the far less favourable outcome of being subject to a CPO, with all the risks and detrimental impact on the University’s land interests that could flow from this. The University’s position overall on the proposed busway has been well documented throughout the public consultation process which commenced in 2017.

The route for objectors to raise concerns about the impact of the scheme in other locations along the proposed route is via the public inquiry, and will be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State and their appointed planning inspector.

It is crucial to distinguish between these separate issues.

Dr C. M. Hills (Newnham College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, before agreeing to this disposal of land the University should first consider whether this is a project which should be supported. One point which has not been discussed so much as the damage to Coton Orchard is the unsuitability of Grange Road as the proposed route of the bus as it arrives in Cambridge.

This use of Grange Road has negative implications for several University Colleges and other institutions which exist along the road. This is a fairly narrow road, for some parts of it two buses pass each other only by going into the cycle path. Currently it has the bad surface of most local roads including large potholes. There is no scope for widening it without demolition of some of the substantial buildings along the road, for example Selwyn College’s new library or the main building of Robinson College. There are four Colleges and two schools along the road, plus other institutions. The road is much frequented by cyclists, many on cargo bikes with children, also students. In rush hour there is considerable traffic in cars, on bicycles and on foot, and traffic jams at both ends of the road, especially the Madingley Road end. At those times the existing Universal bus, otherwise fairly successfully absorbed, aggravates the traffic jams. Adding further frequent buses arriving in the middle of Grange Road and turning in either direction, or proceeding down West Road to join Queens Road – also prone to traffic jams and often occupied by tourist buses – would create a situation with enormous potential for accidents, delayed journeys and gridlock.

The buses should stay on the existing appropriate road, Madingley Road, no new busway is needed.

Dr S. J. Lucy (Newnham College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the proposed disposal of land at West Cambridge, effectively gives (or strongly gives the impression of giving – perhaps more importantly) the University seal of approval to the destructive planned course of the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway, which in fact terminates at Grange Road.

I would like to register my objection to the implicit support being given to the proposed busway route; as a long-term resident of Coton, the University’s apparent complicity in enabling the destruction of ancient habitat in the form of Coton Orchard, through which the proposed route would run, the disregard for stated institutional aims of environmental sustainability and, quite simply, acting as a bad neighbour when there is a viable and far more cost‑effective on‑road route which would also serve the West Cambridge site, is disappointing to say the least.

I understand that this is a strategy to avoid the compulsory purchase of the land by offering a 125‑year lease ahead of the Transport and Works Order, and that the University is a non-voting member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership, at which the decision to press ahead with this scheme will be made. However, I have seen nowhere the University taking any stand against the resultant destruction that it would involve. Instead, the initial Reporter Notice contains the following statement:

The busway will provide a much-needed and desired public transport option to Cambridge West, alleviating traffic congestion on the A1303 and providing sustainable transport options, which aligns with the University’s vision for the site. Therefore steps have been taken to actively promote the route through the site. The Finance Committee supports the negotiations with the GCP, which are being monitored by the Estates Committee and the Property Board.

As the report from Cambridge Past Present & Future amply highlights,1 there is a viable on‑road route, at far less cost and with a much lower environmental impact, that the University could loudly champion; I hope that it starts to do so.

Dr A. G. Sanger (Faculty of Law and Corpus Christi College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the proposal to dispose of land at West Cambridge for the Cambourne to Cambridge busway as announced in the Notice effectively amounts to approval by the University of the construction of a busway through the green belt and a 100‑year‑old Orchard in Coton village (known as the ‘off‑road’ route for the Cambourne to Cambridge project) at great expense to the public, notwithstanding that there is a more financially responsible and less environmentally destructive alternative involving the use of existing roads. The business and environmental case for the off‑road route is hugely problematic for reasons that have been well publicised, while the on‑road route has the potential not only to prevent the eradication of invaluable habitats but will be cheaper, quicker to implement and emit less carbon (e.g., by not concreting miles of green belt land).

I would like to register my strong objection to the University’s proposal for the disposal of land at West Cambridge for the Cambourne to Cambridge busway, and to the GCP-proposed off-road busway route that appears to be supported by the University. The University’s complicity in a course of action that would be destructive ecologically (if the busway enters the West Cambridge site via the GCP proposed off‑road route it would all but destroy the 100-year-old Orchard in Coton) and disproportionately expensive is incredibly disappointing and raises concerns over how such decisions are being made. This is exacerbated by the fact that support for this proposal –directly or through complicity or a lack of objection – runs counter to the University’s stated aims of environmental sustainability and a commitment towards increasing the use of public transport with efficient investment (e.g., the University’s Transport Strategy).

Professor D. A. Cardwell (Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Strategy and Planning, Department of Engineering and Fitzwilliam College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak as an attendee of the Property Board and Chair of the Estates Committee, and as the University’s Pro‑Vice-Chancellor for Strategy and Planning. The Notice referred to a forthcoming Grace seeking approval for two sections of land disposal at the Cambridge West site to enable the construction of part of the Cambourne to Cambridge busway (one of the four transport corridors proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership).

I note a number of comments have been made in relation to the Notice by colleagues concerned about the impact of the off‑road sections of the bus route on the local environment and communities, with particular reference to the Coton Orchard. Since 2017 there have been a number of detailed consultations and options appraisals carried out by the GCP. In December 2018 the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board put the proposed off‑road option as the solution that best met strategic and policy objectives. Cambridgeshire County Council (the authority acting with the GCP) intend to submit a Transport and Works Act Order for the Cambourne to Cambridge busway to the Secretary of State this summer. There is a statutory process that will follow the submission of the TWAO enabling objections to the busway or its route to be lodged and brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.

In the meantime, as the GCP have taken this option forward, the land loss at the Cambridge West site becomes inevitable, and how we deal with the loss is the subject of the forthcoming Grace. The Section 106 agreement accompanying our outline permission for Cambridge West requires the University to provide contributions to enhance sustainable transport options to and from the site, including an obligation for payments towards the busway. In direct relation to the busway, the University has covenanted with Cambridgeshire County Council to safeguard land for the busway. The defined route requires two parcels of land at Cambridge West and this is the subject matter of the Grace. A negotiated deal with GCP is the preferred means by which the University would like to relinquish the land to the GCP/CCC. This is more beneficial to the University in terms of land take and its ability to maintain control of the site, rather than losing the parcels of land through the alternative compulsory purchase route.

In support of the bus route, I would like to add some further thoughts about the future of Cambridge. Cambridge is an area identified for growth by Michael Gove when he was Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. He made the ‘Case for Cambridge’ which set out a vision to make the most of Cambridge’s position as ‘Europe’s science capital’ and he created the Cambridge Delivery Group to deliver this growth. As a responsible developer, it is our duty to minimise environmental impacts and one way we can do this is with appropriate green transport options to bring people in.

The busway brings a direct transport link for University colleagues travelling in from the North/West of the city, to Cambridge West and the centre and we gain a much needed bus stop in the centre of the site. This is a significant and welcome benefit to the University.

Ms H. S. Nash (Director of the Cambridge West Innovation District):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I would like to take this opportunity to provide clarification relating to the Grace to dispose of land at the Cambridge West Innovation District, for the Cambourne to Cambridge busway, which will cross our site.

In my role as Director for the Innovation District, I am responsible for leading the development of the site in accordance with the University’s vision to evolve it into an extraordinary innovation district for academic and commercial occupiers, together with the local community. Implementation of the vision is expected to bring significant benefits to the economy including job creation, funding and research opportunities for the University, plus an ecosystem for generating greater impact to society from our innovation. We can expect our population on the site to triple within the next ten years and we need to secure sustainable transport options for bringing our community to and from the site.

As part of the broader transport infrastructure provision for Cambridge, the GCP has proposed the new Cambourne to Cambridge busway and the University has previously requested that it is routed to service our site.

The University has two options for engaging with the scheme: we can do nothing, in which case the University will become subject to a compulsory purchase order for the land affected, which loses our freehold interest and rights; alternatively, we can enter into a negotiated long-term lease which enables us to reduce the land take significantly and put controls on how the scheme will be built and operated.

The Grace is requesting permission from the University to dispose of land to enable us to enter into a long-term lease for the busway. The terms of that lease have been negotiated to secure the most favourable position for the University. A compulsory purchase order would be a much more detrimental position for the University in terms of land area, control and onward development of the site.

I am aware that there are differing views to the concept of the Cambridge to Cambourne scheme. There will be further opportunity to formally raise any objection to the scheme when the Traffic and Works Act order for the scheme is published this summer, via their consultation mechanism. Objection to the scheme should not be conflated with the subject of this Grace, in seeking to achieve the University’s best outcome from the GCP’s requirements. That could inadvertently place the University in a more detrimental position for controlling their interests on the site.

Colleagues on the Property Board, Estates Committee and Council have taken advice and agreed it is in the interests of the University to dispose of the land parcels by a negotiated agreement with GCP/CCC. I would ask the Regent House to approve the Grace when it is presented.

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Notice recognises that ‘the original vision for the site as a destination for both academic and commercial occupiers was conceived more than ten years ago, with the concept of an innovation district emerging in recent years’. A Report of 15 May 2015 on the future development of the West Cambridge site already mentioned ‘additional bus routes’, but concerns were raised about ‘pavement cyclists’ causing risks to pedestrians from misplaced bus stops.1

The Notice in response explains that:

the City Deal includes options for bus prioritization on the A428/Madingley Road corridor, as well as an orbital route that could link West Cambridge with the Guided Busway and Science Park station to the north and the Addenbrooke’s site to the south. A package of stand-alone improvements is being developed; however, if the City Deal proposals are agreed, then the West Cambridge development would be designed to link to them.2

The Notice we are discussing ten years later says that the further decisions to be taken now need to reflect ‘the government’s identification of Cambridge as an Innovation City’, implying that the deal to be done now will look to government approval in the light of that policy. With inexperienced MPs in a government shuffling itself into shape after a General Election less than a week ago, that approval cannot be a certainty. The new Labour government may not favour the plan for massive expansion of Cambridge. How will its policy affect the Greater Cambridge Partnership which the Report identifies as ‘the local delivery body for the City Deal with central government’.

The Regent House’s direct control of the proposed demolition is clear under Statute F II 3 but the retention of ‘overall control’ of the site itself will be subject to the option of a 125‑year lease and a ‘works licence’ involving the CCC. The Notice merely ‘wishes to update the Regent House on its own ‘negotiations with the GCP’. A Grace is promised requesting approval of ‘disposal’ but should not details of the reported negotiations be published first?

Great Crested Newts featured at intervals in Discussion on proposals for West and North-West Cambridge developments from 1999. The relevant Estates Syndicate included a reminder in its Report of July 2013 that the newts had made it necessary ‘to obtain a licence from Natural England before undertaking any works in the area where there is historic evidence of presence on site’. That had taken some time. Have the newts been consulted about this busway? Or Natural England?

Ms K. Edgcombe (Newnham College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I welcome the opportunity to comment on this proposal and to draw the attention of the Regent House to the wider context.

The tone of the Notice in the Reporter of 6 June might lead the innocent reader to suppose that the busway as currently proposed by the GCP can be regarded as an unmitigated good and the only solution to the perceived problems; this is disputable to say the least. It is deeply troubling that the University is seen to be giving tacit approval to the off‑road option for the busway scheme, which has, for good reasons, attracted substantial and serious local and national opposition all along. A better bus service is agreed to be desirable for everybody, but this is not the way to achieve it; there are cost-effective alternatives which the GCP has repeatedly declined to evaluate properly. The project has a ludicrously low Benefit–Cost Ratio, and provides a doubtful and minimal improvement to journey times.

Even more importantly, this project works against every principle of the University’s admirable Environmental Sustainability policy, with an enormous carbon cost, laying swathes of concrete across the landscape, substantially destroying Coton Orchard – a site of great ecological significance – and causing major environmental and ecological damage.

Of course, an agreement in principle by the University to cede the necessary land does not cause the plan to go ahead, but it amounts to an endorsement of a profoundly damaging project. I do not expect the University to be greatly concerned about a gross waste of taxpayers’ money, but I do expect it to care about unnecessary and irreversible environmental damage. The University, which currently seems to be not merely a consenting party to but an enthusiastic collaborator in this disaster, has a great deal of influence within the GCP, even as a non-voting member; I urge it to use this power responsibly in its own interests and those of the wider community.

Dr J. T. Green (Queens’ College):*

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I agree that, as the Notice states, a ‘busway will provide a much-needed and desired public transport option to Cambridge West’ and that as such it ‘aligns with the University’s vision for the site’. The main three options for the route of a busway have been discussed for many years: one off‑road, one on‑road (dual bound), and another on‑road (inbound only) option added later (alongside several variants of these which were dismissed over time). The off‑road option requires the use of this land for which approval for disposal is sought.

All options are well known to the University through the work of the Strategic Projects group within the Estates Division and through the University’s (non-voting) membership of the Greater Cambridge Partnership over many years. There is a huge amount of information in the public domain which has been accumulated by the GCP1 and others over the ten or so years that this project has been under consideration. This includes much credible information and data supporting the inbound on‑road option as a simpler, cheaper and environmentally more sustainable solution, including reports from Cambridge Past Present & Future (CPPF) in 20212 and from Mott MacDonald (MM) in 2019.3 Either of the extant on‑road options can provide access to the University’s West Cambridge site for bus passengers (as can the off‑road) by utilising current routes through the site as does the U bus.

The University has supported the off-road option for many years and, as mentioned in this Notice, taken steps ‘to actively promote the route through the site’. For example, at a meeting of the GCP Executive back in July 2021, the University’s member stated that the University supported the off‑road solution rather than the on‑road solution and spoke to justify the resultant transection of the green belt.4 At that meeting the GCP decided to approve (only) the off‑road solution5 and accordingly submitted their report6 to a meeting of the Cambridgeshire County Council in March 2023 recommending that the GCP’s proposal for the off‑road option be agreed (and taken forward for an order authorising its construction). The CCC after a long debate agreed the GCP’s proposal, despite an amendment being tabled even as late as this in process, which repeated hitherto ignored requests for an impartial evaluation of the inbound on‑road and the off‑road option.7 This decision by the CCC was far from evidence-based.

The GCP Chair put the GCP’s proposal to the CCC beginning ‘you have been lied to’8 and later, in summarising the debate, stated that she had become ‘intolerant of falsehoods being uttered’.9 Yet the GCP Chair repeated the GCP ‘mantra’10 that the GCP had properly assessed the alternatives citing the GCP commissioned audit of May 2021 by Amey Consulting.11 In the meeting, the Chair of the GCP repeats the claim that it is ‘false’ to say that ‘no‑one has ever directly compared the on-road route to the proposed off-road route’.12 At the end of the debate one Councillor states that ‘the on-road route has been thoroughly examined over many years and would itself have a significant impact on trees’.13 Some on‑road options have been examined but not the inbound on‑road option which the CPPF proposed.

Tangled up within these discussions has been the effect on Madingley Wood, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and on the American Cemetery which has been referred to many times as a reason why ‘an on‑road solution’ would not work. [*]

An independent report (an examination of facts leading to conclusions or recommendations) is very different to an audit (an examination of whether or not due process has been followed by an organisation). The Amey audit does not evaluate the inbound on‑road option but audits the GCP’s governance of the process, as indeed the audit states: ‘the remit of this audit is not to evaluate the merits or otherwise of specific route alignments’;14 the University’s member similarly explained its purpose to the GCP Executive as so.15 No GCP report has concluded that the inbound on‑road option would ‘result in the removal of any trees’.

Why does the GCP continue to refuse to commission an independent report to evaluate the off‑road together with the inbound on‑road (as they have done for dual bound on‑road and off‑road)? Instead the Chair claimed (as noted above)16 that the Amey audit is sufficient to justify their rejection of the inbound on‑road option (whilst the audit report itself states within it, that it didn’t evaluate that option at all).

[*] Over many years there have been endless reports, confusing terminology and ambiguous use of the term ‘on‑road busway’ thereby obfuscating which option is being addressed at any time. How could Councillors be expected to distil the truth from the mountain of ambiguous evidence? One Councillor felt compelled to speak because: ‘there is so much misinformation going on’.17

And why does this matter to the University? Because the Notice and decision before us comes as the result of the above flawed processes within other bodies (the GCP and CCC), one of which the University has Board membership of.

The University now has to make a decision on a matter consequent upon all this. The University must not be complicit and similarly misled; it must take an evidence-based decision using our well-established principles and processes of good governance.

How can the University continue to ‘actively promote’ and facilitate an option which will lead to the destruction of acres of land with a colossal, well-evidenced environmental impact, which is opposed by a large number of the University’s external stakeholders18 and do so without first seeking an independent analysis to evaluate all the factors between the off‑road and inbound on‑road options? The inbound on‑road option leaves the green belt untouched, is environmentally sustainable and delivers the University’s desired aim of access to West Cambridge (and is also cheaper).

The University’s Environmental Policy19 published in 2023 ‘applies to all aspects of the University’s estate … and to a range of stakeholders’. It commits to ensuring that the University:

•‘protects and enhances the natural environment’ … ‘by having positive direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems’;

•‘reduces the environmental sustainability impacts of its construction and refurbishment projects’; and

•‘provides … sustainable travel options’.

In summary, over many years the University has relentlessly pursued the off‑road option, dismissing and ignoring options put forward by other credible stakeholders who have sought for an independent enquiry into the relative merits of each of the off‑road and on‑road inbound options. One of the underlying principles of a university is to be an organisation whose decisions and outputs are based upon evidence-based principles – why not so here?

I urge the University to pause before proceeding and

•to reflect hard on their current approach of promoting and facilitating one option without an evidence base, the provenance of which option is questionable, one which is contrary to their published values, and one which ignores the views of many stakeholders;

•to take serious note of the huge amount of environmental data cautioning against an off‑road busway;

•to commission, contrary to its position to date and with or without the agreement of the Greater Cambridge Partnership, an independent report which assesses the off‑road and the inbound on‑road options for a busway including in terms of relative costs and environmental impact;

•and for the University to abide by its principles (as exemplified in its Environmental Policy) and grasp this opportunity to demonstrate that we practise what we preach.

Professor L. C. Hirst (Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Department of Physics and Peterhouse):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the communities we serve care deeply about climate change. The proposed disposal of land at West Cambridge is effective endorsement by the University to release thousands of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere on the construction of the deeply flawed off‑road busway between Cambourne and Cambridge, when an on‑road alternative route could be implemented faster, at lower cost and with a fraction of the CO2 budget.

The environmental impact statement1 estimates 29,130 tCO2e infrastructure carbon associated with the off‑road route (not including the loss of carbon sequestration in the soil and vegetation or end‑of‑life), with a forecast reduction in private vehicle use of 1.25m km annually, amounting to 516 tCO2e. On this basis, the off‑road route would take 57 years to break even on carbon. The use of a 60‑year assessment period, in an apparent attempt to make this highly polluting scheme appear carbon favourable, and the inclusion of tree planting to offset emissions, can be dismissed as obvious greenwash. Climate change is now and it is simply not plausible to proceed with this maximum emissions policy justified by an unsecured projection of payback over so many decades.

These proposals make a mockery of efforts of departments and individuals within the University to limit CO2 emissions. The construction carves up the scenic cycle route on the West Cambridge campus, and given the unconscionable CO2 profile of this scheme it may well become a flashpoint for climate change protest as the bulldozers roll in. By supporting the off‑road route the University is sleepwalking into a damaging and highly visible blunder on climate change. We must instead support on‑road alternatives alongside investment in cycle greenways (supported by unbiased, evidence‑based CO2 emissions analysis) to serve Cambridgeshire village communities.

Dr D. M. Pullinger (Wolfson College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I wish to register my objection to the University’s proposal to lease land to Cambridgeshire County Council for the purpose of constructing a section of the Cambourne to Cambridge busway.

The off‑road scheme chosen by the GCP (though not by the public in any of their consultations) is unnecessarily environmentally destructive in several aspects.

As the route leaves the Madingley Road, it bisects green corridors that the Cambridge Nature Network is striving to protect and develop.

As it cuts through the village of Coton, it will essentially destroy the county’s largest traditional orchard, which is a County Wildlife Site and a designated Priority Habitat, the loss of which cannot be compensated for by the proposed mitigation measures.

Its unavoidable crossing over the M11 then necessitates the construction of a motorway bridge, making it a massive, carbon-intensive project that is completely unjustifiable if we are to take our responsibility for reducing carbon emissions seriously.

Under any circumstances, the potential environmental damage from the off‑road scheme should demand the most rigorous examination and debate before any decision is reached. It is, however, the case that – although the GCP have never produced a proper evaluation of it – there is a viable on‑road alternative which would result in minimal environmental impact, at a small fraction of the off‑road‑scheme cost. To ‘actively promote the route through the site’1 – to actively promote the off‑road scheme – is therefore in direct conflict with the University’s commitment to environmental sustainability.

Dr A. P. Caines (Department of Computer Science and Technology and Sidney Sussex College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, as a resident of Coton, I fully agree with the comments submitted by Dr Sanger (p. 792 above). As an employee of the University based on the West Cambridge site, I would like to additionally comment on the disruption to and negative impact on the site that will be caused by the disposal of land for the busway.

The proposed route, where it goes south of Charles Babbage Road and across the Cambridge West Canal will break up a part of the site which is currently traffic free and heavily used by cyclists and pedestrians accessing the West Cambridge site, as well as pedestrians, dog-walkers and families who make use of the space for exercise away from traffic and its dangers, noise and pollution. There has been no apparent attempt to engage with or consult users of the West Cambridge site and the path which runs between Adams Road and Coton. The busway will bisect it, causing great disruption during construction, and slowing down journey times once in operation.

At a time when the University on the one hand places great emphasis on supporting its employees wellbeing, mental health and physical health, it seems illogical to so negatively impact pathways which are so widely used by people both commuting and seeking exercise. The paths are also used by senior and junior running clubs in the evening, as well as large numbers of students going to the University Sports Centre for training, exercise classes and examinations.

My remarks have so far related to the adverse impact on people. There would of course be a negative impact on the environment which does not seem justified by the busway scheme. Not only are those impacts to be felt on the Coton side of the University’s proposed disposal of land, but also as it crosses the West Cambridge site and proceeds across the fields to the west of the Wilberforce sports ground, and along the current footpaths between Clare Hall and the rugby ground out onto Grange Road.

Ms S. E. Flood (External Member, University Council):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I submit these remarks as a University Council and Finance Committee member and a member of the Property Board. The Council Notice alerted the Regent House to a forthcoming Grace seeking permission to dispose of two sections of land on the Cambridge West site to enable the Cambourne to Cambridge busway to transect the site. It has long been known that public transport options into the city of Cambridge have been a problem for University staff. Queuing for up to an hour to drive down Madingley Road is not a rare occurrence. The GCP acting through the County Council has responsibility for tackling this problem and the Cambourne to Cambridge busway is a proposed solution.

As with any new busway some land take will unfortunately be required. We recognise that during construction, there will be some impact on adjacent communities, through noise and construction traffic. To counter this, a finished bus route leads to fewer private cars on the public roads, alleviating congestion and minimising greenhouse gas emissions. There are significant concerns nationally about a housing shortage and the need to build more affordable homes. Regionally there is a need for housing to support the growth of Cambridge. As there are few sites immediately surrounding Cambridge or within Cambridge that are available for housing at the scale required, housing growth is leap‑frogging the green belt to areas such as Bourn and Cambourne. Without sufficient transport infrastructure these locations become isolated, generate significant private car use and reduce quality of life. Allowing the improved public transport infrastructure via the Cambridge to Cambourne scheme reduces pressure to release green belt for housing. Without suitable infrastructure to enable access between homes and jobs/education and other services, quality of life is diminished and life chances are limited. This is especially relevant for young people entering FE/HE and the jobs market but also for those needing access to healthcare. The GCP have a commitment to at least 10% BNG (biodiversity net gain) for the Cambourne to Cambridge scheme. So whilst some locations along the route will see a reduction in biodiversity there will be an overall increase.

As the Notice states,

The route of the Cambourne to Cambridge scheme includes part of the University’s land. Normally compulsory acquisition powers would be sought in the order authorising the Cambourne to Cambridge scheme. However, the GCP has agreed not to seek such powers provided an agreement can be reached between the parties.

My membership of the Property Board has meant I have been privy to the detail of the deal struck with the GCP and have scrutinised it carefully along with my fellow Board members. I know equal consideration has been given by the Estates Committee and Finance Committee who both support the disposal of land by the means put forward.

If the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge bus route is approved, a matter outside of the hands of the University, the land in question will be lost to the University to enable the route’s construction. This is not something the University can, or in my opinion, should be blocking, as the advantages of a bus route to the local community as well as to the University are noted above. As the land loss is inevitable, it is imperative on the University to secure the best deal it can, minimising land loss, securing advantageous bus services and retaining as much control over the entirety of the Cambridge West site as it can. The deal that has been painstakingly negotiated with the GCP over many previous years allows the University to do this.

Under the lease option, land loss is minimised, there is control over the bus access down Charles Babbage Road, and we protect the University’s long-term ownership position at Cambridge West. The issue for us to consider is clear. Do we enter into a deal with GCP to secure a lease for this route, or do we wait for the inevitable Compulsory Purchase Order to take the land (and more of it, without the benefits secured in the deal)? There is not an option that does not include the disposal of this land. I would urge my fellow members of the Regent House to support the Grace to dispose of the land through a deal with the GCP when the Grace is presented to them.

Professor C. A. Short (President of Clare Hall and Emeritus Professor of Architecture):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Clare Hall has no objections to sustainable city design and transportation. A number of its Fellows, postdocs and graduate students do important work in this area.

•The preferred route from West Cambridge to the city centre was changed silently to swing across open fields to take over Rifle Range Road and avoid the most straightforward route. It will skim the entire length of Clare Hall and the University Rugby Club opposite with a major piece of new infrastructure. It is bizarre indeed that a natural Greenway would become a busway and a fully metalled roadway become a Greenway.

•The need to cross the Bin Brook well above its flood level requires a raised causeway to be built along the whole length of the route climbing to 2.5 metres above current ground level, retained by steep banks which will impinge physically on Clare Hall. This will destroy the outlook and peaceful environment for the many Fellows, visiting Fellows, graduate students and their families, many with young children who will live and work within a few metres of the proposed busway. Many fine trees will be at risk.

•The nature of the proposed vehicles is not specified but whatever type is employed there will be considerable noise disturbance.

•The Ralph Erskine buildings at the heart of the College are listed Grade 2* and Listed Building Consent would normally be required to build within their curtilage. Adjacent is the very fine listed Arts and Crafts villa, Elmside, by E. S. Prior which will also be adversely affected. The proposed junction with Grange Road is very compromised by the narrowing of Grange Road and will have to be a blind right hand turn only, unless land is also sequestrated from the Elmside site, infeasibly close to the listed building.

•The College has retained a well-known traffic engineering consultancy and a national quantity surveying practice to develop the authority’s hitherto undeveloped proposals to determine their true implications and cost them. They estimate that the proposed Rifle Range Road route will cost an additional £8 million, possibly more. It will destroy the peaceful environment of Clare Hall, a prospering graduate research institute with eight Nobel prizes to its name, pursuing precisely the world class research activities that the city and regional masterplans are particularly intended to support. We ask the University to suspend this transfer of land until the full implications of the two routes it enables are thoroughly investigated, along with the other alternatives available. Others are lobbying for those.

Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta (St John’s College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks in protest at the proposed destruction of Coton Orchard in favour of a new bus route. The proposal has the same insidious logic that has shaped biodiversity loss throughout the world. We tend to think of human induced species extinction in terms of large-scale changes in land use: forests being transformed into crop land, animal farms and plantations; grasslands transformed into pastures; mines and quarries ripping apart dense jungles. But there is a more insidious process at work, which is perhaps even more powerful: the bit‑by‑bit fragmentation of ecosystems that accompanies growth in our demand for Nature’s goods and services. Fragmentation leads to disproportionately greater losses in biodiversity. Persistent, incremental encroachment into Nature is also insidious because each move seems near harmless: a new bus lane cutting through an ancient orchard here, a mangrove forest sliced to make way for a luxury hotel there, a bat habitat, destroyed to make way for additional housing in an urban sprawl elsewhere. The orchard will not return, the mangrove forest won’t have space to recover its previous glory, and the bat population will die because it has nowhere to go. If at each move human demand is allowed to trump ecological integrity, the landscape that evolves becomes denuded of biodiversity. The proposed destruction of Coton Orchard is built on the same logic. If the University of Cambridge is unable to appreciate the underlying destructive logic in this, we should all despair.